Civic News & Info
Obama's immigration directive PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Tuesday, 17 July 2012 12:57

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary

President Obama’s Immigration Directive

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Mr. President,

Last September, President Obama responded to amnesty proponents, denying that he had authority to unilaterally grant special status to individuals who may be eligible under the Dream Act.  The Dream Act has been around for a decade, and in varying forms.  It has been voted down several times by this body – and mostly because the Leader won’t allow for an amendment process to improve the bill.  When asked by amnesty advocates to push the bill through executive order, President Obama said this:  “This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.  We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

But, one month ago, President Obama continued his “we can’t wait” campaign and circumvented Congress, again, to significantly change the law on his own.  On June 15, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security would lay out a process by which immigrants here illegally could apply for relief and remain in the United States without the fear of deportation.  So, what has changed in the last nine months?

Before I dive into the details of how poorly planned and implemented this directive will be, I have to question the legal authority of the President to institute a plan of this magnitude.

I, along with 19 other senators, sent the President a letter and asked if he consulted with attorneys prior to the June 15 announcement about his legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants. We asked the President if he obtained a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration.   To date, we have not received any documentation that discusses any authority he has to undertake this massive immigration directive.

I know that the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to determine who is put in removal proceedings.  Prosecutorial discretion has been around for a long time.  But, it hasn’t been abused to this extent.  The President is claiming that the Secretary will implement this directive using prosecutorial discretion.  However, millions of immigrants here illegally will be instructed to report to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and proactively apply.  This is not being done on a case-by-case basis as they want to make it appear.

The President’s directive is an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, and it’s an inappropriate use of Executive power.  The President bypassed Congress because he couldn’t lead on immigration reform, and he couldn’t work in a bipartisan manner on an issue that involves undocumented young people.

The President’s directive runs contrary to the principle that American workers must come before foreign nationals.  His policies only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today’s economy.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearly 17 percent for the last year.  According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32 percent of 18- to 29-year olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed.

The President’s plan to get people back to work is to grant immigrants here illegally a work authorization.  He must be seriously out of touch if he doesn’t think there’s competition for American workers.

Now, I want to talk about how poorly this directive has been thought out.  It’s my understanding that the White House informed Homeland Security officials of this plan days before they announced it on June 15.  They were unprepared, and have since been scrambling to figure out how it will be carried out.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service – the agency in charge of all immigration benefits, including work authorizations, visa applications, asylum petitions, and employment verifications for employers – will be tasked with handling millions of new applications for deferred status and work permits.

Agents in the field are confused as to how to do their jobs, and fear retaliation if they don’t do the right thing.  In essence, this White House is telling agents in the field to begin a practice called “catch and release.”

Just last Friday, Homeland Security officials briefed the Judiciary Committee on the directive.   Staff was told that agents would be required to release immigrants here illegally if they fell into the criteria laid out.  But what are the ramifications if an agent does not release them, but instead, uses their discretion to say the person was not eligible and put them in removal proceedings?

DHS explained that such an agent would be subject to disciplinary action.  The agent’s actions would be considered during their annual personnel review.  So, there will be no discretion for agents and they will be forced to give deferred action to anyone that comes close to the criteria laid out, even despite their hesitation to do so or face retaliation from bureaucratic higher ups.

It’s as if Homeland Security forgot their mission --- which is “to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive.”

Once we overcome the question of legal authority and the reality that there was little thinking put into this plan, we are left to oversee the details of the implementation plan.  Homeland Security officials say they will have a process laid out by August 15.  We have very little details, but Homeland Security officials did give some insight on Friday to members of the Judiciary Committee.  Here’s what we learned:

We know that people under the age of 30, who entered before their 16th birthday, have been here for five years, and are currently in school may qualify for deferred action.  We know that there are caveats to the criteria – some criminal offenses will be okay, and young people can finish their education after they are granted deferred action.  We know that individuals with final orders of removal will be eligible for deferred action.  We know that these people will not have to appear for an in-person interview to benefit from the directive.   We know they’ll be granted this special status for two years, and those that are denied will not be put into removal proceedings.  We know this isn’t aimed at helping just youth since the age limit is 30.

We know that people under the age of 30 are not the only people going to be considered for relief.  Secretary Napolitano said so herself.  She told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer the following:  "We have internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action.”  I wasn’t born yesterday --- this administration isn’t going to give a benefit to an immigrant here illegally and then force his or her parents to leave the country.  Which begs the question, what will they do if the young person is eligible and receives deferred action but the parent is a criminal, a gang member, or a sex offender?

Because this program hasn’t been well thought out, and because it’s being rushed to benefit people by the end of the year, there’s no doubt that fraud will be a problem.  How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate?  How will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?    Homeland Security officials act as though they’re prepared to handle the influx of counterfeit documents that will be presented.  They are going to rely on their small fraud detection unit --- who is busy working everyday on other types of immigration benefits – to determine if people are truly eligible.  What will be the consequences for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?   They need a fraud and abuse prevention plan.  Without one, they’ll likely legalize every single immigrant on U.S. soil that is here illegally.

The administration will announce more details about this plan in the next few weeks.  I’m anxious to see if they plan to only provide deferred action to this population.  Department officials refused to elaborate on whether some of these individuals will be able to get advanced parole – a special status that allows an immigrant here illegally to adjust to permanent resident, and then gain citizenship.  This administration wants people to believe that this isn’t amnesty, and that these people will not have lawful status.  But, I’ll be watching to see if they try to pull the wool over our eyes and provide a status that allows these people to adjust and remain here permanently.

Finally, a major flaw in the President’s plan is how to pay for this massive amnesty program without requiring taxpayers to cough up their own hard earned dollars.  Department of Homeland Security officials said on Friday that illegal immigrants may not be charged for this special status.  The individual would be charged $380 if they choose to apply for a work authorization.  They could not assure us that funding would not be redirected from other programs to this initiative.  To reprogram funds within the Department, the Secretary must notify and gain the consent of the majority and minority leaders on the appropriations committee.  However, when pressed, Department officials could not assure us that they would not bypass that long-standing process and reprogram dollars on their own.  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service will be forced to concentrate on this plan, leaving employers, foreign workers and legal immigrants without the service they need to work, visit, or remain in the U.S.   If agency adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, this can only have a devastating impact on other programs in the Department. I fear that this plan will bankrupt the agency that oversees immigration benefits, and it will affect all legal immigration for years to come.

Mr. President, I fear that the President has overstepped his authority again.  The President – time and again – has shown no leadership and refused to work with Congress on issues that directly impact the American people.  He insisted that he was going to change Washington.  But, he’s changed them for the worse.  He insisted that he was going to make this the most transparent administration ever.  But, Congress and the American people are left in the dark.

No matter where one stands on immigration, we should all be appalled at how this plan has been carried out.  We should all be concerned that our votes are rendered meaningless.   Until we can end this plan, I encourage my colleagues to watch over its implementation, for the future of our country.  The integrity of our immigration system is hanging in the balance.

***

 

For Immediate Release

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Senators Question President’s Authority to Issue Immigration Directive

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley is leading a group of ## senators  in questioning the directive announced last week by President Obama to grant deferred action to illegal immigrants and asking for a full accounting from the President of his legal authority to issue such a directive, how the executive action will be implemented and administered, and the cost to taxpayers.

In a letter sent to the President this afternoon, the senators asked for written responses to a list of detailed questions and a briefing from the administration officials who will be responsible for the program:  Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas.

Grassley’s letter was signed by Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Mike Crapo of Idaho, James Risch of Idaho, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, John Boozman of Arkansas, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, David Vitter of Louisiana, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Mike Lee of Utah, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Click here for a signed copy of the letter.  The text of the letter is below.

 

June 19, 2012

 

President Barack H. Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, D.C.  20500

 

Dear President Obama:

We are extremely concerned by your announcement last week that the Department of Homeland Security plans to implement a program that grants deferred action to an untold number of illegal immigrants in the United States, and to allow them to receive work authorization during this time of record unemployment.  Not only do we question your legal authority to act unilaterally in this regard, we are frustrated that you have intentionally bypassed Congress and the American people.

As President, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution and enforce the laws.  Your recently announced directive runs contrary to that responsibility.  Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, but it is an inappropriate use of Executive power.

Your position on whether you have the legal authority to act unilaterally has changed dramatically.  Just last year, you personally disputed the notion that the Executive Branch could act on its own and grant benefits to a certain class of illegal immigrants.  Specifically, you stated,

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.  We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it."

  • Why has your position on the legal authority of the Executive Branch changed?
  • Did you consult with attorneys prior to the announcement about your legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of illegal immigrants?
  • Did you obtain a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else in the administration about your legal authority to implement such a program?
  • Please provide copies of any documentation, including any and all legal opinions, memoranda, and emails, that discusses any authority you have or do not have to undertake this immigration directive.

We are also concerned that the directive being implemented allows individuals under the age of 30 to obtain a work authorization.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for young adults aged 16-24 has been nearly 17% for the last year.  According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. workforce were underemployed.  Your directive runs contrary to the premise that American workers must come before foreign nationals.  It is astonishing that your administration would grant work authorizations to illegal immigrants during this time of record unemployment.  Your directive will only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today’s economy.  Moreover, under current law, some foreign students and other legal visa holders are prohibited from obtaining work authorizations, giving illegal immigrants an advantage over those who play by the rules.

The implementation of your directive raises several serious questions.

  • What will happen if your directive is challenged in court?
  • Will individuals who have applied for deferred action be required to leave the U.S. if such a challenge is upheld?
  • How will the administration handle family members, specifically the parents who violated federal immigration law?
  • Will individuals who entered the U.S. on their own volition – either by crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa – be eligible for deferred action?
  • Why does the directive allow individuals up to age 30 to benefit from deferred action if the directive is aimed at helping young people and students?
  • How will federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate and how will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or are currently under the age of 30?
  • Will evidence submitted in support of deferred action applications be limited to independently verifiable government-issued documents (e.g., school records, W-2s, tax returns)?  If not, why not?  If affidavits will be accepted, will they be required to be made under penalty of perjury?  If not, why not?
  • Will illegal immigrants be required to appear in person for an interview by the federal government before deferred action is granted?
  • How will the agency implementing the program ensure that fraud and abuse is prevented?
  • What will the consequences be for individuals who intentionally defraud the government?
  • Which databases will be used and how will background checks be conducted to ensure that individuals do not have a criminal history or pose a threat to public safety?
  • What would constitute a “significant” misdemeanor offense, which is one of the criteria for eligibility for deferred status?
  • Will individuals with final orders of removal be eligible for deferred action?
  • What action will the administration take if an individual is denied deferred action?
  • What action will be taken if an individual is granted deferred action, but subsequently abuses that grant, is arrested, is found to be a member of a criminal gang, or does not actually attend school?
  • Absent congressional action, what will happen in two years to the individuals who are granted deferred action?
  • Will recipients of deferred action be eligible for receipt of advance parole?
  • What criteria will be used to decide who gets work authorizations and who does not?
  • Which other departments and agencies will be consulted and will work with the Department of Homeland Security on the implementation of this directive?

We also believe that taxpayers deserve to know how this program will be funded.

  • Can you assure us that the total implementation cost of the program will be paid for by the individuals seeking to benefit, or will U.S. taxpayers subsidize any part of the program?
  • How much, if anything, will an illegal immigrant be required to pay in order to obtain deferred action?
  • What legal authority does the Executive Branch have to mandate a fee for this service? We understand that the Department has never previously charged a fee for the processing of a request for deferred action.
  • Do you plan to reprogram funds at the Department of Homeland Security or any other Executive Branch agency to help fund the implementation of the directive?
  • If you plan to use funds that already have been appropriated or other funds from the Department, please explain which programs will be reduced in order to cover the costs associated with the directive.
  • If USCIS adjudications staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, what will be the impact on other USCIS programs?

Given that this directive is effective immediately and that many questions remain unanswered, we ask that you immediately make available Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service Director Alejandro Mayorkas to respond to our concerns.  We would appreciate responses to our questions, including any relevant documentation related to this directive, no later than July 3, 2012.

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Orrin Hatch of Utah

Mike Crapo of Idaho

James Risch of Idaho

Saxby Chambliss of Georgia

Johnny Isakson of Georgia

John Boozman of Arkansas

Jim DeMint of South Carolina

Thad Cochran of Mississippi

Roger Wicker of Mississippi

David Vitter of Louisiana

Mike Johanns of Nebraska

Pat Roberts of Kansas

Mike Lee of Utah

Mike Enzi of Wyoming

Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

 
Governor Quinn Takes Bill Action Monday, July 16, 2012 PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Nafia Khan   
Tuesday, 17 July 2012 09:10

CHICAGO – July 16, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn today took action on the following bill:

 

Bill No.: HB 4314

An Act Concerning: Regulation

Extends the date by which a business must certify job relocation to the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity in order to be exempted from certain utility taxes.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

###

 
Are school dropouts the nation's biggest problem? PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Bob Velderman   
Monday, 16 July 2012 14:23

Retired superintendent calls dropout epidemic the nation’s biggest socio-economic problem

By Ben Velderman
EAGnews.org

GUILFORD, Conn. –  Armand Fusco has dedicated over 50 years of his life to public education, first as a classroom teacher and later as a guidance counselor, a principal, a superintendent and a university professor.


The 80-year-old educator and scholar has seen virtually every educational fad and reform there is, but none has come close to solving what he calls "the most serious socio-economic problem facing the nation" -  school dropouts.

"Reforms intended to improve inner city schools do not address the dropouts because they are considered throwaway children – out of sight, out of mind," Fusco tells EAGnews.org in an email exchange.

The "throwaway" children – many of whom are black males and Latinos – all have one thing in common: they are functionally illiterate, lacking basic reading, writing and math skills. As a result, "they experience academic failure day in and day out," and have no compelling reason to remain in school, Fusco says.

On average, 7,200 kids drop out of school every day, totaling 1.2 million dropouts per year. Over the course of three years, that’s a population that surpasses the size of Chicago.

Dropping out of school causes obvious economic hardships for young people. They earn far less than their high school- and college-educated peers, assuming they can even find work.

Low-skilled workers have unemployment rates that are two-to-four times higher than those with higher levels of training, and they also spend more time out of work, writes Dropout Nation editor RiShawn Biddle.

But dropping out of school results in more than lost income; it also leads to lost lives.

School dropouts account for 80 percent of the nation’s prison population, which Fusco sums up this way: "If a student can’t read, he can’t learn, he can’t get a job, he can’t survive, so he can’t stay within the law."

It's a serious problem, but Fusco says only one of the education reforms being proposed and enacted throughout the nation has the potential to solve it: holding back third graders until they acquire adequate math and reading skills.

The research backs him up: students who don’t have basic literacy skills by third grade are four times more likely to drop out of high school.

Third grade retention "is the only policy that may have some lasting effect, and it’s still in its infancy," Fusco says.

A few states do require students to be proficient in reading before leaving the third grade – most notably Florida and Indiana – but he warns that approach will not succeed unless there are intensive literacy intervention programs for struggling students.

"It should begin the summer following grade three and continue, if need be, by having a minimum of four hours a day devoted to literacy instruction," Fusco says, adding that "interventions could and should begin even earlier."

Zombie schools’


Fusco has literally written the book on the dropout problem. He released a 500-page tome earlier this year called "School Pushouts: A Plague of Hopelessness Perpetuated by Zombie Schools."

As the title reveals, Fusco blames the dropout problem on "zombie schools" – his term for failing schools – and the adults who allow them to exist.

The former superintendent places much of the blame on ineffective school boards that fail to provide strong leadership and shirk their oversight duties. Weak school boards cede too much control over the operation of the school district to the local teachers unions.

Clauses in teacher contracts constrain school administrators from effectively managing the school by placing limits on class sizes, meeting times, teacher evaluations, teacher assignments, grievance procedures and layoff procedures, among other things.

"The very public institutions intended for student learning have become focused instead on adult employment," he says.

Fusco also blames state departments of education "that tread too lightly on local control," thus allowing weak-kneed school boards to exist.

"(The states) are the ones that have the responsibility and are in control," he says. "There is no one else to blame."

Fusco recoils at the typical union suggestion that parents are ultimately to blame for allowing their children to attend school unprepared to learn. Unions only make that argument to shift responsibility from their members, he says.

"What parents can be blamed for is not supporting what the schools are trying to do academically, not helping enforce discipline, and not getting involved with the school, although many single parents don’t have the time to do it," he adds.

A time bomb exploding ‘

Fusco spends hours every morning scouring various education blogs and websites for the latest reports and studies concerning school dropouts. The research has led Fusco to break with fellow education reformers over the value of charter schools, vouchers and school choice.

Such options might provide "an immediate escape from the bondage of failing public schools," but only if there is a successful school nearby, he says. Too often, students end up trading a failing school for one that is "less failing."

But he reserves his strongest criticism for reformers who want to expand preschool programs.

"That's probably the most insane reform," he says. "What is absent from the discussion is what happens to children upon leaving preschool. Since this effort is primarily in the inner cities, and since the inner cities have the preponderance of failing schools, the reality is that the preschoolers simply move on to a failing school. That makes no sense.

"What preschool does is to provide many union jobs, and that's really what it's about."

Instead, Fusco advocates policies that are designed to boost reading skills. That list includes teaching literacy in all classes, using online learning programs for intervention purposes, having schools partner with local colleges and universities and, of course, third grade retention.

He notes that the third grade reform "engine has not picked up steam," possibly because holding students back is a blow to the self-image of both the students and their parents.

But research shows that third grade retention only works if it is accompanied with an effective reading intervention strategy. Holding students back simply to give more of the same only results in continued failure, he warns.

Educators also need to revamp the high school experience, since this "is where dropouts occur." He says "improving high schools – what they do and how they do it – could be a significant help in stemming the tide of dropouts."

"Remember what the basic problem is – dropouts are in all respects illiterate and that is why they are failing," Fusco says.

He sums up the urgency of the dropout problem this way: "This is a time bomb exploding economically and socially every twenty-six seconds."

 
Governor Quinn Takes Bill Action Friday, July 13, 2012 PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Leslie Wertheimer   
Monday, 16 July 2012 13:19

CHICAGO – July 13, 2012. Governor Pat Quinn today took action on the following bills:

 

Bill No.: HB 3329

An Act Concerning: Liquor

Permits grocery stores to sell liquor in cities with a population over 1 million and within 100 feet of a school if the store meets certain criteria.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: HB 4031

An Act Concerning: Criminal Law

Extends the sunset repeal of the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council from Dec. 31, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2015.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4063

An Act Concerning: Firearms

Exempts airsoft guns from the definition of a firearm.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4076

An Act Concerning: Regulation

Defines cosmetology school so that students can apply for student aid and expands licensing for barbers.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4126

An Act Concerning: Regulation

Extends the Naprapathic Practice sunset an additional 10 years and streamlines the existing act.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4145

An Act Concerning: Local Government

Authorizes a county board to declare by ordinance all inoperable motor vehicles, whether on public or private property and in view of the general public, to be hazardous dilapidated motor vehicles.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4324

An Act Concerning: Liquor

Make a technical correction to statutory language to allow the sale of alcohol at a restaurant that is near a church in the city of Chicago.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: HB 4440

An Act Concerning: Public Transportation

Streamlines data sharing between the Illinois Department of Public Health and the RTA to ensure that free and reduced fare transit cards

belonging to deceased individuals are deactivated.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: HB 4545

An Act Concerning: Local Government

Ensures that employees Office of the State Fire Marshal who meet certain requirements, are not prohibited from receiving training certifications on the grounds that they are not employed or otherwise engaged by an organized Illinois fire department.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: HB 4592

An Act Concerning: Government

Exempts from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), records requested by persons committed to the Department of Corrections if those materials are available in the library of the correctional facility; include records from staff members’ personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information; or are available through an administrative request.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 4691

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Adds public and private ambulances engaged in an emergency service or duty that necessitates the use of the toll highway system to the list of vehicles that are not required to pay a toll.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: HB 5234

An Act Concerning: State Government

Removes the Illinois Register of Historic Places and instead provides for all historic places to be registered on the National Register of Historic Places.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: HB 5321

An Act Concerning: State Government

Extends the sunset date for the Capital Development Board to charge contract administrative fees from June 30, 2012 to June 30, 2016, and provides that these fees are put into the Capitol Restoration Trust Fund for use by the Architect of the Capitol.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 5336

An Act Concerning: State Government

Transfers the Safety Consultation Program from the Department of Commerce and Economic

Opportunity (DCEO) to the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL), including the transfer of specified staff,

records, unexpended moneys, and rules.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: HB 5444

An Act Concerning: State Government

Creates the Economic Data Task Force to assess the potential uses and users of state data generated by Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) and the application of the data for economic development and other public uses.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

Bill No.: HB 5452

An Act Concerning: State Government

Gives the Illinois Finance Authority the authority to make discretionary changes, instead of mandatory in regards to certain provisions.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 5616

An Act Concerning: Local Government

Increases the amount of bonds the Will-Kankakee Regional Development Authority may issue to $250 million.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 5632

An Act Concerning: Employment

Removes obsolete language, redirects payments to Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) previously made to the director of IDES, and conforms with federal law.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: HB 5656

An Act Concerning: Finance

Allows all unused federal funds in the Capital Development Board Contributory Trust Fund to remain in the

Fund, and be used only for other capital projects.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: HB 5679

An Act Concerning: Health

Allows the Department of Human Service (DHS) to redirect funds when its developmental disabilities facilities decline in enrollment.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: HB 5780

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Exempts fees allowing police departments to transfer license plates from one vehicle to another vehicle.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 968

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Updates the definition of “commercial motor vehicle” to comply with federal standards.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 1286

An Act Concerning: Revenue

Allows animated film production tax credits to be applied beginning when the productions begin.
Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: SB 1900

An Act Concerning: Revenue

Changes the deadline for the return of assessment books and workbooks to the supervisor of assessments in order to allow additional time for the proper completion of the appeals process. Allows the supervisor of assessments in counties with less than 600,000 residents to take possession of assessment books and work books that are not submitted within the required time.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

Bill No.: SB 2578

An Act Concerning: Health

Amends qualifications of the director of the Department of Public Health.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: SB 2818

An Act Concerning: State Government

Changes definitions to allow more youths to be eligible for scholarships through the Department of Children and Family Services.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: SB 2819

An Act Concerning: Corrections

Eliminates specific mandates requiring the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to public and furnish various reports.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

Bill No.: SB 2839

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Requires floatation devices on sailboats and exempts sailboards.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 2844

An Act Concerning: Corrections

Amends bond rating standard for vendors who seek to enter into medical contracts with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).  Also further restricts waivers for medical co-pays at DOC and adds revisory language regarding HIV testing.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: SB 2849

An Act Concerning: Children

Expands the definition of “neglected child.”

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: SB 2935

An Act Concerning: Regulation

Extends the Wholesale Drug Distribution Act for an additional 10 years.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 3242

An Act Concerning: Insurance

Provides that no insurer may issue a service provider contract that requires a dentist to provide services to the insurer’s policyholders at a fee set by the insurer unless the services are covered under the applicable policyholder agreement.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 3262

An Act Concerning: Liquor

Allows for the issuing of a liquor license to certain premises within 100 feet of a school following certain stipulations.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: SB 3277

An Act Concerning: Local Government

Extends the Glenwood tax increment financing redevelopment project.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 3318

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Gives the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) quick take power for the Illiana Expressway Project. Makes technical changes.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: SB 3450

An Act Concerning: Gaming

Provides that investigators appointed by the Illinois Gaming Board shall have authority to conduct investigations, searches, seizures, arrests and other duties imposed under the act and the Riverboat Gambling Act, as deemed necessary by the board.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: SB 3484

An Act Concerning: Government

Increases the membership of the State Board of Health from 19 to 20 and adds an optometrist as a member of.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Jan. 1

 

Bill No.: SB 3530

An Act Concerning: Transportation

Defines and provides for registration of former military vehicles with the Secretary of State (SOS).

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

Bill No.: SB 3607

An Act Concerning: Revenue

Eliminates tiers of complaint dates for assessments under the Property Tax Code.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

 

Bill No.: SB 3798

An Act Concerning: State Law

Makes technical corrections, stylistic changes, and compile sections affected by multiple public acts.

Action: Signed

Effective Date: Immediately

###

 
Scott County Board of Supervisors' Tentative Agenda PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - Civic News & Info
Written by Chris Berge   
Thursday, 12 July 2012 14:35

 
<< Start < Prev 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Next > End >>

Page 119 of 212